Consider the basis for mathematics, a notion of one and zero, being and nothing, value or void;

Although operations with the analogical one and zero are basic to mathematics, the use of non-numerical signs impliesthat numbers are subset within a systemic context; although we need not conclude anything about this pre-condition,one may go so far as to say that there is a slipperiness in operators:

For example, we may simultaneously posit that:

1 + 0 = 1 not 0 AND1 - 0 = 1 not 0

[10 = the Scales, thus 10 is not 1,0 ; to posit gain is to posit complex gain in numbers]

In the context of the digital, comparing the set 1, 0 to the number 10 creates a schism;the first is pared until it requires systemic referrant, while in the second case the systembecomes accretively both ambiguous and complex

Questioning the view that 0 + 1 - 0 = 1 because for example 0 is less than 1 creates the idea thatearlier statements might be redefined (dangerously) with unexpected results. One might look alsoat two other related expressions:

One might then claim that 0 - 1 = 0 not -1 (else 1 - 0 = 1/2)

Evidence might be cited in the equivalent expressions [(1 + 1) - ( 0 + 0)] = 2 not 1 yet [(1 - 0) - (1 - 0)] = 0 not 1, the first is said to equal 2 and the second zero; simultaneously it is held that two positives amount to positive, and two negatives amount to positive, however in this case that isn't true. If it is not negatives operating, how may one explain that one expression is greater than the other with approximately identical terms?(e.g. how is the extension [(1 + 1) - (0 + 0)] + [(1 - 0) - (1 - 0)] > [(1 - 0) - (1 - 0)] + [(1 - 0) - (1 - 0)] + 1 ? ad infinitum?)

the expression x{y might be compared to 'x root y' or 'x stem y' superficially but doesn't entail any operation specifically so much as a context-point within which operations may occur

saying that 0{3 is 1/3 would be wrong, for its implicit here that 3 is a subset of 0 that still has for lack of a better term quantitative value (the best conclusion may be that there is an implicit non-spacial geometry depending on concepts of distinction-as-variable)

also, saying that 3}0 is 1 or 3 in a traditional sense is misleading; the distinction between 2{0 and 3{0 may be seen in the same way as 2}0 + 1}0 = 3}0 in the sense of piling coins, however it is more accurate to say that systemically 0{0 is of greatest importance, while qualifically 99{0 is like a mobile operator and 0{99 a matter of many dimensions as yet unqualified

However, according to previous arguments, the only conclusion flies in the face of traditional arithmatics:

posing 1 - 0 / 0 - 1 not= 1

then either 1 - 0 / 0 - 1 not= 1 - 0 / 0 - 1

OR

1 - 0 / 0 - 1 not= 0 AND (1 - 0 / 0 - 1) + (1 - 0 / 0 - 1) not= 2

Since it runs agianst all rationality to claim a statement is not itself,

The conclusion is that since 1 - 0 / 0 - 1 not= 0

AND

1 - 0 / 0 - 1 + 1 - 0 / 0 - 1 not= 2

thus

1 + 0 not= 1 AND/OR 1 - 0 not= 1

Since this flies in the face of fundamental mathematics, the most rational thing is to refigure at the primary equations in a manner suiting to resolution_ _ _The initial assumption was that 1 + 0 = 1 and not 0and 1 - 0 = 1 and not 0

YET 0 - 1 is -1AND 0 + 1 is 1 and not 0

Considering on the surface these four entities (surrounding a zero point),

[2] 0 + 1 should be 0 not 1(since -0 + 1 = 1)else -1 + 0 = 1(cancellation of signs)else pending argument of the validity of positive or negative numbers since the view of zero as a canceller is promoted in these methods, yet also in the concept that -0 + 1 = 1 in the context of cancelling operators [EMPHASIS]

This altered view, although utterly insane by most standards, suggests an alternate approach to mathematics in which an attenuated proportion within the traditional graduated system (e.g. for example integral numbers redefined in terms of fractions or geometry) provides a foundation for a calculative method

Maybe sometime it will be determined for a childhood like mine, that calculus was too diabolical, we needed a diabolical calculus

Dimensionism

Followers

About Me

I am a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet (in some capacity), and a member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. My quotes have appeared in Book Forum, the Hartford Courant, and other independent websites. A comment at The Economist cites my possible influence on the economic policy of India. One of my artworks once sold for $1 million off the street but I ended up returning the money. I have written many books on topics such as perpetual motion machines, philosophy systems, and the occult. I live alone in New Haven, CT.